Competing congressional bills have reignited tensions over Puerto Rico’s future status and relationship with the mainland U.S. , but a rare congressional hearing has brought a new sense of urgency among lawmakers debating whether to support statehood or a different path defining the relationship between U.S. territories and the federal government. .
The Natural Resources Commission’s Island Affairs Office held a legislative hearing on Wednesday to discuss competing bills in an effort to engage Congress in Puerto Rico’s future, a topic many members have avoided in the past.
The question of standing has long divided Puerto Ricans in the United States, largely due to how the local system of politics is organized. Most of the people support the New Progressive Party for the State or the People’s Democratic Party, which supports the current state of society on the island. A smaller percentage of “independents” support the Puerto Rican Independence Party, which calls for the island’s independence from the United States.
Such divisions have seeped into Congress in the form of two opposing bills.
Rep. Darren Soto, a Florida Democrat, and Representative Jennifer Gonzalez, a non-voting congressman from Puerto Rico and the Republic, introduced bicameral and bipartisan legislation last month that would allow for Puerto Rico’s statehood after a non-binding referendum. He asked voters directly if Puerto Rico should be accepted as a country. With nearly 55 percent of the electorate, about 53 percent of Puerto Ricans voted for the state, while 47 percent rejected it, according to the Puerto Rican Election Commission.
Another bicameral and bipartisan bill by Representative Nidia Velasquez, DN.Y. , And actor Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, DN.Y. , Proposes an inclusive self-determination process by creating a “status agreement” composed of delegates. They were chosen by wealthy Port photographers who would be responsible for finding long-term solutions to the island’s territorial situation: statehood, independence, free association, or other options beyond its current regional order.
“The Self-Determination Act does not impose a choice on the people of Puerto Rico. Instead, it allows for an in-depth discussion of the implications of each case option and what the transition plans will look like,” Velasquez said. “Puerto Ricans did not benefit from obtaining this information in advance. Congress must commit to moving forward with the process of self-determination.”
Gonzalez criticized Velasquez’s bill, saying it “blatantly ignores the will of Puerto Rico’s voters”.
“Letting a losing minority deny the clear choice of the majority in a free and fair vote is not democratic, and the United States should not participate in such a heinous act,” Gonzales said.
During the lengthy hearing, pro-state witnesses continued to criticize the self-determination bill, arguing that the proposed process unnecessarily prolongs the debate that Puerto Ricans have been waging on the island for more than five decades and opens the way for debate. Regional options may not be. In accordance with the constitutional law of the United States.
